Andhra Pradesh & Karnataka are under the grip of flash floods. Several towns and villages in the states, particularly in Kurnool, Mahabubnagar and Krishna districts in Andhra Pradesh, have been inundated with the mighty Krishna river and its tributaries in spate for the past two days.

With Tungabhadra dam also in spate, nearly half of the Kurnool town has been inundated. The famous Mantrayalam temple has submerged. Over 25,000 people in Kurnool town alone have been stranded in water. According to unofficial reports, the floods have so far claimed the lives of over 200 people across the state.

“At least 25 villages are inundated and standing crops are completely destroyed,” stated the Andhra Pradesh disaster management officer, Y.R.V. Sharma. The recent floods have certainly brought attention to the climate challenge but not enough for the Indian media.  All throughout the first week the Indian media was conspicuous by its absence here at the Bangkok negotiations but all of a sudden, they will surely flood the negotiations in the second week.

My sincere request, please do your homework and catch up with all the recent happenings within the walls of the UN center here at Bangkok, because these very walls won’t speak and with the lack of media present in the first week I don’t see the right messages having gone out .

While the negotiations just carry on taking in circles and arriving at the same point, the enormous text is in its own way, flooding our minds . All the jargon, the acronyms, the “distinguished” formal language somehow loses the idea behind the whole convention. The saving grace are the big rallies and marches asking for climate justice which are not only in simple understandable language but remind the negotiators of the purpose behind the negotiations and what they are here for.

Anti Nuke Rally back in Delhi

Back home, the Indian Youth Climate Network participated in the anti-nuclear rally which was a big hit on the streets of Delhi.  We certainly hope that their voices were heard by the negotiators all the way in Bangkok because I sometimes feel they have no idea of all the great local actions taking place in their own country which they should not only acknowledge but celebrate in the plenary speeches here at the UN climate talks.

In honour of those who lost their lives in the recent floods I’d like to urge the Indian media to wake up and start spreading the great work India has planned to undertake and make the message loud and clear – WE are WILLING to do everything  we are required to which is within our capacity until and unless the Annex 1 parties take ambitious targets. Without them committing we have already taken the most ambitious solar mission plan to generate 20,000 MW solar power by 2020 . This is the most ambitious plan of its kind in the world. Apart from that we have all ready committed to 100 million tonne reduction of CO2 by 2020 which is five times more than the European Union is willing to commit at the moment (source:  India’s National Action Plan on Climate Change). If we can commit more than you, with a  situation like ours, what’s stopping you from being ambitious?  Aren’t you ashamed enough already?

One of the problems that India’s new government will find itself confronting – a problem that is rapidly moving up the global geopolitical agenda – is the issue of climate change. This issue is extremely pertinent to India for a number of reasons. First, climate change is likely to hit India hard in the coming decades. Predicted impacts include water scarcity, decreased crop yields, increased risk of disease, and flooding of coastal areas. These problems will be most detrimental to India’s poorest citizens.

Secondly, the short-term global efforts to negotiate reduced emissions of greenhouse gases could have a substantial impact on the Indian economy. Most argue that global negotiations pose a threat as industrialized countries may try to force India to take on emission reduction obligations. Other see opportunity mixed with threat: global climate change offers an opportunity that Indian businesses must be quick to embrace. Either way, between the impacts of climate change and efforts to reduce emissions, climate change will not leave India untouched.

The next few years will be critical in shaping the global regime. In December 2009, nations will meet in Copenhagen to decide on an updated version of an international global climate regime. Copenhagen will only be a staging point however, as it will take another two to three years to work out the details. The current government has laid some important policy planks on which the next government can – and should – build. But at the same time, it increasingly appears that the Indian approach is inadequate to the scale of the challenge. Consequently, the next government’s stance on climate change is particularly significant.

At the domestic level, the 2008 National Action Plan on Climate Change calls for promoting development actions that also yield climate “co-benefits.” This is an important concept as it will help ensure that development efforts are placed at the center of climate actions. Some concrete measures are also promising and worth initiatives, such as a proposed “solar mission” and concrete energy efficiency measures.

At the same time, the plan and its follow-up measures fall well short of a promised “qualitative change in direction” toward ecological sustainability. Instead, much of the plan is a re-packaging of existing policies under a climate banner. For example, existing schemes on agriculture and forests are packaged as climate adaptation measures, with no complementary effort to scrutinize and re-think existing schemes that may add to climate vulnerability.

Climate change is too far-reaching and serious for such a marketing approach to adaptation or a band-aid approach to mitigation. While the current government got the approach and concept generally right – a visioning exercise organized around development and climate co-benefits – the implementation leaves much to be desired.

A new government could complete the job and take seriously the promise of a “qualitative change” in development. A renewed climate plan also needs to be far more inclusive and tap the energy and ideas of civil society, business, and bureaucrats who are in the front lines of implementation. Creative ideas for climate adaptation and mitigation are more likely to bubble up from these actors than from centralized ministries. Finally, a climate plan needs to take seriously the inequities in emission levels within India. A visionary perspective on India’s developmental future – one that takes the threat of climate change seriously – is an essential starting point. Without it, India can neither be clear on what its stakes are in international negotiations, nor can it engage in the international debate from a position of credibility.

On the international front, India has long been guided by a principle of equity in its global negotiation position. On principle, Indians have argued for equal per capita entitlements to the global atmospheric resource. In practice, equity is partially enshrined in the convention through the notion of “common but differentiated responsibilities” and differing capacities of industrialized and developing countries. In other words, since the industrialized North substantially caused the problem, it should be in the forefront of solving the problem. However, the North has neither adequately decreased greenhouse gas emissions at home, nor has it provided technological and financial support to the South. For principled and pragmatic reasons, therefore, a new Indian government should continue to be a forceful voice for equity in the international negotiations.

A renewed Indian position on climate change will, however, have to grapple with an uncomfortable reality: the global climate regime is increasingly coming down to an unfair choice between global equity and climate effectiveness. Developing countries, including India, justifiably call for industrialized countries to move first. Despite their historic responsibility for the problem, rich countries unjustifiably insist that some developing countries, including India, are now “major emitters” and must also act. The result is a vicious cycle of ever more heated rhetoric and ever more climate-ineffective measures.

This outcome is not in India’s interest. The difficult reality is that India is likely to be among the countries hit hardest by climate change. Despite this problem, India should not buckle to international pressure and give up on the principle of equity. The current stance, therefore, appears to be to prioritize equity, and implicitly – if not explicitly – accept that the cost may well be an ineffective climate regime. However, since climate impacts will vastly complicate the task of poverty reduction in India, this is also surely not an acceptable response.

If India is to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, a renewed Indian climate strategy must more proactively and creatively explore opportunities for a climate agreement that is both effective and equitable. Given the fraught global context, this will not be easy and will require finding ways to reverse the current vicious cycle and construct a virtuous one. Instead of under-cutting each other, countries will need to challenge each other to match ever more ambitious commitments. Despite the intransigence of the North, the question remains: can India play a leadership role in accomplishing this reversal without compromising its immediate interests? The answer is not clear, but it is clear that the question has not been adequately explored.

A path forward may rest, as suggested earlier, in a careful and creative domestic policy response. Could climate change become further motivation for Indian cities to re-think moving in the direction of greater liveability? Could climate change accelerate a shift to cleaner energy forms that reduce local air pollution and dependence on foreign fuel sources? Could the threat of climate impacts become the driver of a far more efficient and equitable water economy? Could Indian businesses develop new forms of outsourcing that will yield a profit in a carbon-constrained world? Most critically, can a new government realistically build an international strategy for climate effectiveness and equity on the foundation of creative domestic policies, without compromising the country’s interests?

Skeptics may argue that the toxic nature of the global climate regime is beyond redemption, and it may well be. But given the likely toll of climate change on India – particularly on its poorest citizens – it cannot afford to give up on seeking both equity and effectiveness in a global climate regime.

Navroz K. Dubash is an Associate Professor at the Centre for Study of Law and Governance at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi, India.

In 2050, I’ll be 77, and given the pace of the climate talks in Bonn these two weeks, I’ll likely spend most of my retirement either under water or on fire.

If finalized in the next climate agreement, the weak targets offered so far by developed countries virtually ensures that greenhouse gas concentrations (and sea levels) will rise to levels well beyond what science says are safe limits to ensure the survival of peoples and nations. Over 100 youth from 6 continents (the Antarctic youth called in sick) participated in the Bonn negotiations, watching our leaders draft an increasingly costly and damaging climate for us to live through.

Daily at the negotiations, youth have shown our governments how vulnerable our generation will be to the warming and climate change they are creating with their short-sighted proposals. We literally brought two camels and tons of sand to the negotiation entrance to highlight the drought and desertification many of our countries increasingly experience. We rapped and rhymed about the threatened survival of nations and developed countries’ weak financing proposals. Youth tracked key negotiators to remind them the next generation is watching, and blogged to their peers in multiple languages.

We supported indigenous rights and opposed deforestation and forest degradation. Global North and Global South youth played an UNfair (sic) game of football (the Americans insisted on playing soccer) to highlight the unequal negotiating position of developing countries. They also worked to raise money for their developing country members to participate with them in the Copenhagen talks. Fifty Chinese, Indian, and United States youth wrote the 1st collaborative statement (in two languages so far) by youth from these three countries on a shared vision for our nations’ roles and opportunities in cooperating on an agreement.

In the end, it is clear that negotiators have largely ignored the perilous position they have put their children in, and ignored the science as well. Japan’s 8% reduction from 1990 levels in 2020, and Russia’s, Switzerland’s, and New Zealand’s lack of any specific targets raises the chance youth will grow up suffering through climate tipping points and accelerated warming. These “commitments” put an incredible burden on our countries’ future leaders to create post-2020 cuts necessary to reach 2050 reductions.

Despite continued leadership by President Obama, and skilled diplomacy by lead Bonn negotiator Dr. Jonathan Pershing, industry lobbyists have ensured that weak domestic legislation will prevent the U.S. from honestly offering strong international commitments in Copenhagen. At best, the American Clean Energy and Security Act as written would let the U.S. achieve a 3% reduction in 2020 and create only a fraction of the clean energy jobs Americans desperately need. At worst, 1% is likely given offsets and other loopholes.

[JR:  The 3% reduction is compared to 1990 levels, as the link makes clear.  I assumed, given how this paragraph is written, that Kyle also meant 1% reductions compared to 1990 levels.  If not, I'll let him clarify.   I can't see a plausible scenario where ACES as currently written, coupled with Obama's other clean energy and GHG-reduction investments and mandates, doesn't take us to 1990 levels or below by 2020 (see here).]

While Bonn failed to deliver the protections to peoples, species, and generations youth know are needed, they renewed our commitment to redefining what is pragmatic and possible. Delegates should expect to hear from us again soon.